No one is voluntarily taking on Lee's bloated contract unless they're getting a viable player or draft pick out of it.
Lee is a viable player. He is a 16-18ppg scorer who can get 9-10rpg. He is a skilled big man who can shoot, post up and pass.
I agree with you on shooting and passing, but I've never seen him post up, so can he actually do that?
Yes, he posts up. He has been doing it more over the last few years than earlier in his career.
Almost 20% of his offense this year came from post ups. I'd say that number was even higher last year when D.Lee was playing in Mark Jackson vs this year for Steve Kerr.
The emphasis on post ups was a big reason for why Jackson was a bad coach who deserved to be fired and replaced by Kerr.
Exactly. As far as Lee being a "viable scorer," what he does isn't worth what he's paid, expiring or not. No one will take his contract for "free" and you can quote me on this: if Lee is traded, it will not be without an additional asset and/or player. No team is willingly going to help Golden State avoid the luxury tax by taking an unwanted, grossly overpaid player they sparingly even play unless the Warriors make it worth their while, i.e. "take Lee's contract and we'll give you Harrison Barnes or one of our few remaining first rounders."
Also, his jumper has been largely MIA this entire season and is a huge part of the reason why he doesn't play: he's a terrible defender, he hasn't been healthy, Kerr avoids post-ups, and if he can't even hit a jumper, what's the point of him being on the court? For rebounding and occasional low-post play? Sure, but that's not worth almost $15.5 million, much like Lin is a viable player whose skills are not worth his $8+ million contract that actually pays him just under $15 million; there's a reason why Houston had to attach a first rounder with him.